First They Came for the Smokers ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Thu, 2012-07-19 22:52

First They Came for the Smokers ...

Philip Morris Tobacco has started a website where visitors can seek information about, and comment on, the National Socialist regime's ongoing lunge toward tobacco prohibition. In the tradition of Adolf Hitler and Comrade Clark—she of recent honourable mention here—the NatSocs are intent on:

* Increasing the price of 20 cigarettes to more than $20 in four years (prices are already among the highest anywhere)
* Putting cigarettes in plain packs
* Banning smoking in outdoor public places
* Abolishing duty-free allowances on tobacco products
* Making NZ "smoke-free" by 2025

It's only a matter of time before the nico-nazis demand the coup de grace: the banning of smoking in private homes. Hone Harawira has been advocating outright prohibition for some time.

Smokers in the past have been useless in fending off the vicious assaults of the Nanny State, but this could be a potent issue for freedom-lovers to coalesce around. (Don't expect ACT or its youth wing, Banks on Campus, to be anywhere in sight, though). Perhaps the goal should be to make NZ politician-free by 2025. Think of what exasperation over a much more modest tea tax once achieved!

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." (Samuel Adams.)

The Philip Morris website is:

"closer to your conscience"

Robert's picture

Well the only thing you can do is vote strategically and in accordance with your conscience. That is, work to change the culture - even if it is only arguing with socialist University colleagues...

You can't deny the reality of the system within which you work. The electoral system in NZ & the USA is not to blame. The fault lies in the fact that government is exercising powers it was never intended to have. To reverse that we need more people who think like we do and we need those people to enter politics. And until that happens, you have to use strategic delaying tactics to ensure that there is some sort of functional political system for them to enter.

Which is to say that I agree with you. I'm pretty sure that I agreed with you voting National at the time given the general disarray of Libz. If I did not, it was probably because I did not understand just how truly fucked Libz was - probably because I was still hoping that Libz could influence NZ culture somehow.

So I apologize unreservedly.

In defense of those of us who took the fall of Libz badly, the investment of time and money into building that organization in the teeth of a culture that abhorred it was significant, especially on the part of Linz, Peter Cresswell et al. It is a bitter pill to swallow to burying the invention into which you've poured your heart, soul, hopes and dreams. George Washington (for one) was legendary for his grace and diplomacy in such situations but he was super-human in that respect. Impermeable grace and diplomacy in the face of abject personal failure is something I am not capable of.

That wasn't really my point...

Ross Elliot's picture


I was suggesting that a vote for Libz NZ is as meaningful as a vote for Johnson USA. That is, you're voting for a candidate/party that is closer to your conscience.

To vote GOP 2012 is the same as voting National in NZ circa 2008. It ain't pretty, but it unseats the horrendous alternative. A vote for any GOP candidate, including Ron Paul, is a strategic vote. The hypocrisy is that we have a double standard: vote my conscience here, vote strategically there.

"made more sense"

Robert's picture

Past tense Ross, past tense.

Libz when it first came on the scene was novel, vital and had fire in their bellies. When that died, their wherewithal to make a difference died with it too. Same with ACT and Bob Jones' party.

One of the US libertarians problems is that they've lost that lust for life too IMHO. The last Liertarian I ran into was running a stall at the MO state fair and he was crapping on about 9-11 conspiracy theories and other crap. And he smelled worse than the deep fried twinkies.


Ross Elliot's picture

"Given the electoral system in NZ is proportional, it made more sense for Libertarians to contest the NZ general elections. "

...that only applies if a small party has the wherewithal to make a difference.

At some point, voting for Johnson USA or voting for Libz NZ has the same effect. And at this point they are one and the same. Yet we have this wholly irrational idea that we should support the GOP versus Obama, not because the GOP is fundamentally better, but because they stand a chance of unseating Obama. Yet, in NZ, we have this self-serving idea that voting Libz is a good idea because you're voting your conscience even though that vote matters not one jot as to who holds the reigns of power.

It's hypocrisy.

If you vote Libz NZ you must support Johnson USA. How can you do otherwise? The effect of your vote is the same. Is Romney closer to your thinking than Johnson? Is National closer to your thinking than Libz?

No! they cry, we must unseat Obama. No matter the imperfection of the deposer. Goodness, sounds like someone trying to unseat Labour circa 2008 by voting National.

spelled out

Craig Ceely's picture

Well, you already had, and quite adequately, so...if I now say "No," will I be insulting you?

Of course

Sandi's picture

Did I need to spell it out?

Robert's ratchets and radios

Craig Ceely's picture

Robert, I still don't find much if anything with which to disagree with you here. Are you even trying, lad? "Pissing contest?" Really? You haven't even had your first beer yet!

As for using every weapon in the arsenal, well, aren't we? The think-tank business is a PhD house, so...We, most of the rest of us, go elsewhere. As Objectivists, we're weak on politics, because we're weak on numbers. That's not going to change any time soon, so we back non-Objectivist candidates when we think we legitimately can. Nothing immoral about that. True, we won't have an Objectivist US president in the next 20 years -- but if someone is demonstrably strong somewhere, and not horrible elsewhere, you could back that candidate. Others could agree or disagree with you, but there it is. A decent candidate needn't be an Objectivist. And you also run the risk of being wrong, or fooled: Rand herself campaigned for Willkie and later described him as a "phoney," and she later said that she hadn't expected much from Nixon, and even so was "disappointed." Well, if she can err, so may we all. And even if you're wrong about the candidate you support, the other creep may well still have been worse. Not much comfort there, but some. You do the best you can, make the best judgment you can. As I've argued before, sometimes that means deciding not to bother to vote.

How about the other end of the spectrum? If the presidency is out of reach (as some say, and I'm pretty much one of that number), then how about city council, or county commission? It's not as grand, of course, but if there's a growing movement for something onerous like breed-specific legislation -- and you own a pit bull or a Rottweiler; or a bond issue (with concomitant taxes) so as to build a new sports stadium for some private owner; or more restrictions on gun ownership.... well, if you're in that city or county, then by all means fight it!

As for economic and political conditions never having been more stark: this is a trickier issue. I do think things were worse ("more stark") in the mid-1930s than they are in America now. But -- and I'll give you this -- I also think they stand to get a lot worse here, perhaps even worse than back then. Thank you, Richard Nixon, Alan Greenspan, and all the other "lesser of two evils" of my lifetime.

(Disclaimer, to Robert and all others: I am a proud and delighted pit bull owner, I have never voted for Richard Nixon, and I may or may not have more firearms in my home than you think I have.)


Craig Ceely's picture

Isn't that the point?

Chatting to Supermarket Staff

Sandi's picture

Since legislation kicked in yesterday, cigarettes are no longer kept behind any checkout counter, they must be carried to the check-out and orders are, when carrying them the cigarettes must not be seen but are to be held closely to the chest, clutched and HIDDEN. (You have to see this to believe it).

Its rather effective in showing up smokers to be a total pain in the arse, as the rest of the shoppers will soon get mighty pissed off having to wait for smokers to get their fixes secretely carried to them by the authorized drug dealers. Needless to say smoker's will continue to suffer and I just bet that rationing will be next.

"the culture has to change first."

Robert's picture

Aye. And here is where we circle back to Linz's thread. I'm saying that we need to use every weapon in the arsenal to it's best effect. I'm saying that we need to find a way to use politics as a teaching tool.

I believe that now is the perfect time to use politics to help convince the culture to change. I can think of no other time in history where a starker contrast between socialism/statism and capitalism/Liberty could be painted.

Imagine an actual recent American example of Libertarian/Objectivist economic and social theories in action. Imagine how that example would strengthen your argument with the "people" who haven't had their brains educated out of them.

I mean those in the inner cities with steel bars on their windows who can identify the type of weapon used in a drive-by by the sound it makes. I mean the Hispanic immigrants who are coming to this country in droves looking for a life away from uber-violent narco-terrorists. I submit that neither Gary Johnson nor Yaron Brook is reaching either of those classes of people very well. I submit that they could be reached on a more concrete level via politics. Is that not how the Progressive 'community organizers' have been achieving their success?

My feeling is that people like that need to be that an economic theory works in practice before they'll risk supporting it -- they have the most to loose. And as the country goes into the economic free fall we all know is coming, opportunities will arise to SHOW people the difference between capitalism and the crap the Republicrats are shoveling.

The culture must change. I agree. I just think that you can do more than just Think-Tank people to death.

I submit that the nation no longer has the time to lecture these people on the error in their thinking. Libertarians/Objectivists need to use EVERYTHING in their intellectual arsenal to win.
Look, I've nothing against Gary Johnson. Vote for him or not if you are in a solid Blue or Red state.

My main goal was to explore the idea that that the Libs have been entering US Presidential politics for what a decade now and 2008 reversed damned near EVERYTHING they have fought for. Likewise the Objectivists. But I say again, never before has the economic and political conditions been more stark. I see that as an opportunity to super-charge the effort to change the culture via a strategy targeted at the sub-Presidential political strata.

I can't think how that could work any worse than what the Libs/Objectivists have tried over and over and over again up until this point.

And lest this become a pissing contest, I'm not attacking anyone. These are ideas I get as the news of latest round of Economic misery washes over me as I listen to the radio on my way to and from work. Either you guys get to hear this or my dashboard, and my dashboard can't articulate how I am wrong.

ratcheting the Revolution

Craig Ceely's picture

Robert, I fear we are hijacking Linz's nico-nazi thread, and I'd rather not be that rude, so I'll be brief.

First of all, I am not an advocate of reforming or abolishing the Electoral College. For the reasons you mentioned, I'm an avid supporter of keeping the thing, and keeping it as is. As you mentioned, some scenarios probably wouldn't end well.

Second, consider your single-state/single-city (did someone say "ratchet?") idea in terms of what Johnson has already accomplished in his political career: he's been elected governor of New Mexico twice, as a Republican. Twice. As a Republican. As anyone in the Southwest can tell you, that's no mean feat. I think there are only five other Republicans in all of New Mexico anyway, and they probably don't all know each other. So this kind of thing is possible, it can be done, and it has been done. You can't predict where it will catch fire or be successful, but by all means: Let's have more.

Finally, your revolution in the head and ground up strategies are, I think, the same thing, and I can't disagree with either of them. And they tie in with your ratchet. But remember how a ratchet works, and if you do, then there we are again: the culture has to change first.

Voting for Johnson...

Robert's picture

Actually I was putting forth an idea about how a small third party might gain some traction in coming elections. One of the things I've always maintained is that you need to have a revolution in people's heads before you can have a revolution in literal fact.

Where I stand apart from 99% of objectivists is that I think you can and should use every means at your disposal to bring that revolution about. That means Ed Hudgins and Yaron Brooke speaking & writing as much as possible. But I also believe in fighting the political fight too.

And in THAT context, Johnson's & Libertarian's efforts would - IMHO - be better spent targeting a single state (preferably one like Michigan that is in the toilet) and turning it around in as loud and obvious way as possible.

As you say, you cannot win the Presidency because of the electoral college. That is as it should be. The founders agreed to that system because it means that a President has to win entire States populous and not in order to win. And in a country that covers six(?) time zones and 310,000,000 people unequally distributed - any proportional system would be a disaster. We'd have the East and West Coasts overwhelming the wishes of those in the South and Mid West... And that probably wouldn't end well.

As for turning around the country. I actually think that that will have to be effected from the bottom up. That is, liberty-minded people will have to run and win city, county and state elections.

replacing one statist with another

Damien Grant's picture

I used to think that it was better to vote for the lesser of two evils but I am a lot less sure now.

I do not share the strong anti-Obama views of many here and I view Romney as a weather vane, (maybe even a whether vain) politician who will maintain the status quo. I mention this merely to place my next comments in context.

Johnston has no chance of victory but I do not think you need to win to be successful. I look at the effectiveness in the west of the hard-left over the last sixty years. They have rarely held power but by taking an extreme position they have shifted the centre of debate towards their views, to where the social welfare state and all its trappings is both untouchable and considered mainstream.

It is better to demonstrate support for the more libertarian candidate, indeed I would do this even though I am not a pure libertarian, because I want to see the centre of debate ripped away from the socialist anchor where it is currently moored.

Lindsay talks about the effect of Gramsci, an intellectual never held office. Sometimes ideas are more important in the long term that replacing one statist with another.


Michael Moeller's picture

Says the guy loading crates of ammo into his bunker. Yes, the genius and astute political mind that stated Carter did more to reduce government than Reagan.

Oh, how my heart aches.

The Dharma Wheel

Richard Goode's picture

How do we escape the seemingly endless cycle of death Democrat and rebirth Republican?

What Craig said.

vote your conscience, or don't waste your fucking time.

don't listen to poltroons who trumpet that "A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama." If you have something better to do that day, then don't bother to vote, because a bother is all it is and will be.

Robert's Ratchets

Craig Ceely's picture

Robert, can't criticize you about the ratchet strategy. We all, all of us, know that it works. Sadly, it only works in one direction, and that's because most US citizens -- and thus, both political parties -- share the same fundamental principles.

This blanket claim "A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama," thus, is either ignorant or, worse, dishonest. I'll leave you, the reader, to decide. I already have.

A vote is cast ... cast where? Because, in America, it matters.

Let me ask you, American voters: will you be voting in California? Or in New York?

Well, then, I'll tell you something you already know: your vote doesn't mean shit.

Obama will take all of those electoral votes. All of them. You may as well vote your conscience, or not bother to vote at all.

Will you be voting in Texas, then? Or in Oklahoma?

Guess what: your vote here doesn't mean shit either. Romney will get all of those electoral votes, all of them. All of them.

In all four cases, it won't matter how close the decision is. And in all four cases, you already know how the decision will go. You know it today, people. As in already: carve it into your arms, people. This is how it will go.

Once again: vote your conscience, or don't waste your fucking time.

Are you in a potential swing state? Well, now you may have some homework to do. And you should consider doing such homework. For example, Colorado seems to be in play of late because of the Obama moves against medical marijuana operations. Okay, fine. Excellent, in fact. I hope this hurts him, and hurts him badly, and I'd like to see him lose. Especially in a closely decided election, and especially on something that was dear to the hearts of the Left of my youth. I don't think that Romney deserves to win, mind you, but Obama definitely deserves to lose.

But either way: nice to see him gone.

But you know what? There's a bigger issue here, and I'll quote Ayn Rand: "There can be no unchosen obligations."

She was right.

So: once again, it comes down to you using your own mind and making your own decision. Are you in a so-called swing state? Then you may have a strategic decision to make. If not -- and most Americans are not, and thus do not -- then, don't listen to poltroons who trumpet that "A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama." If you have something better to do that day, then don't bother to vote, because a bother is all it is and will be.

"I have no idea why he is even running"

Robert's picture

I agree - though without knowing him I can't tell if its vanity or ideological faith that's driving him, some people just want to be matyrs. Given the electoral system in NZ is proportional, it made more sense for Libertarians to contest the NZ general elections.

But in America, the money and manpower consumed in contesting a Presidential election could be better channeled into winning a Governorship or providing the swing vote in a Senate seat or even the Mayoralty (?) of a major city.

Sure, being the first sane mayor of San Francisco or Chicago in 100 years isn't the same as being on AF1. But you are still leading a city of several millions or - in the case of the Governor of California - the world's 4th or 5th biggest economy. And it isn't as if Chicago, SF and California couldn't use the help. But even if you got hold of one of those bankrupt New England states and turned them around, that would do wonders for making the case that Libertarian politics works.

Note that I am advocating taking the entire national Libertarian effort and concentrating it into one spot. And if Libertarians don't like donating money for out of county/city/state politics, in the US they can move to the newly Liberated(TM) province...

I know, its that ratchet strategy again... Smiling

But if you haven't got the firepower to clear the fence - and the US Libertarian (or whatever party emerges to replace the Republicans) doesn't - you have to concentrate on playing small ball (going for singles and twos in cricket parlance). Your win then is based on the momentum you generate as opposed to getting lucky. Which in Garry Johnson's case is akin to winning the Power Ball lottery.

Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world?

Richard Goode's picture

A vote cast for Johnson is a vote cast for Obama.

All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders’ attempt to evade the fact that a vote cast for Johnson is a vote cast for Obama. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that a vote cast for Johnson is a vote cast for Obama. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Romney is your Man.

Because Ross...

Michael Moeller's picture

A vote cast for Johnson is a vote cast for Obama.

Johnson doesn't have a prayer in hell, so I have no idea why he is even running. I think what Johnson is doing is shabby and out of sheer vanity. Some states might be extremely close, and votes cast for Johnson in a meaningless gesture could end up swinging an important state to Obama.

Now let me ask you something, Ross. Why is it you are always demanding I answer your questions, while you refuse to answer mine, particularly on the Allen West thread?


So, where's your vote, Michael?

Ross Elliot's picture

Romney over Gary Johnson?



Richard Goode's picture

It's great to see you directly quoting (albeit, selectively) Obama and Romney to back the point you are making. Have a chocolate fish.


Michael Moeller's picture

Goode wrote:

"Robert is the only one here to have presented a half-decent case for voting Romney. But I'm still far from convinced that to do so would be a good idea."

Oh gee, that's a real tough one.

On one side, at his worst, we have a RINO squish that lacks a clear ideology and political philosophy.

On the other side, we have a committed anti-capitalist, anti-American, Marxist ideologue who is hell-bent on "fundamentally transforming" America into a state of pure collectivism.

If you cannot discern the difference between THIS:

"If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

versus THIS:

"Do we believe in an America that is great because of government or do we believe in an America that is great because of free people allowed to pursue their dreams and build our future?
I’ll tell you this: I’m convinced he wants Americans to be ashamed of success. I want Americans to welcome it, to celebrate success, to encourage people to reach as high as they can and in some cases to build enterprises. I don’t want government to take credit for what the individuals of America accomplish."

Then you have serious problems, Goode. Then again, we already knew that.

I'm looking for time to continue to personally flourish and to rebuild this culture, not much of a choice, here.



Richard Goode's picture

You're such a sweet guy.

So are you, Ross. For the most part, I find your comments on SOLO intelligent, incisive, eloquent, funny and well worth reading. For the most part. But, as someone once said, civility in the face of evil is no virtue. I take that maxim to heart. And this is SOLO, after all. The place just wouldn't be the same without "robust" discussion, would it?

The incongruity is: in NZ you can vote for a party that has no hope of altering the political landscape. And you can claim moral superiority. But when talking about US politics, you can vote for a candidate that flies in the face of your morality simply to get rid of a worse candidate.

Yes, indeed. The incongruity is severe. Perhaps Linz can explain why he would vote for Romney over Obama, but didn't vote for Key over Clark.

Robert is the only one here to have presented a half-decent case for voting Romney. But I'm still far from convinced that to do so would be a good idea. America, the once proud land of the free, has been pronounced dead. Why are people bickering over the fate of its corpse?

But let's get one thing clear. A vote for Libz is not a wasted vote. There is hope of altering the political landscape.

If we ultimately succeed in altering the political landscape then, one day, the history books will give the Libertarianz Party its proper due as the party that in the early days of the revolution united the disparate group of freedom fighters who brought this alteration about.

If we ultimately fail in altering the political landscape, you'll get what you deserve. You don't need to claim moral inferiority, Ross. It's not in dispute.

Thanks, Richard

Ross Elliot's picture

You're such a sweet guy.

I didn't vote for Clark. I voted to get rid of her, despite the woeful alternative.

You think it doesn't matter. If you did, you wouldn't have wasted your vote by voting Libz.

The incongruity is: in NZ you can vote for a party that has no hope of altering the political landscape. And you can claim moral superiority. But when talking about US politics, you can vote for a candidate that flies in the face of your morality simply to get rid of a worse candidate.

I'm wondering why someone who supports Libz in NZ is not supporting Gary Johnson in America. Why is the debate over Romney and West? Why isn't the vote for Johnson and US Libertarian over Dem/GOP as it was for Libz over National and Labour? Both have the same chances of victory.

Oh, no, we can't contend that, can we? Because that might mean, that despite the philosophical imperfection of our vote, that we are simply seeking to rid ourselves of a horrible alternative. God forbid.


Richard Goode's picture

I voted for the Nats to get rid of the worst government in NZ history. Do you deny Clark was the worst? Would you vote for Romney or West to get rid of Obama? Yes, you would.

You voted for Clarkey. Linz says he would vote for Robama. Fuckwits, both of you.

The fact is: you wrote speeches for a party that was philosophically *worse* than Paul.

Linz wrote his speeches in a valiant attempt to steer the ACT Party in the direction of more freedom and less government. And, on the day, he gave two ticks to the Libz. Where domestic politics is concerned, Linz is above reproach. Whereas you, Ross, voted National, thereby endorsing the very evils that Linz has been railing against this past week. (Read my avatar.)

At least you, Ross, have the good sense to support Ron Paul.

You're both a mass of contradictions. Like your stupid philosophy.

First they came for the ACT speechwriters

Ross Elliot's picture

I made this comment on the Allen West thread that Lindsay conveniently dropped off the front page.

Perhaps we can bring it back.

"I note how this thread has no been dropped off the front page. Convenient.

I voted for the Nats to get rid of the worst government in NZ history. Do you deny Clark was the worst? Would you vote for Romney or West to get rid of Obama? Yes, you would.

You don't have a leg to stand on regarding that. You voted Libz which did nothing to get rid of Clark. Your vote was the same as voting US Libertarian to deny Obama.

The fact is: you wrote speeches for a party that was philosophically *worse* than Paul. Yet you berate me for supporting him.

Put this back on top and argue it out. Or is that too loathsome?"

Second to last they came for the smokers ...

Richard Goode's picture

... would be more accurate. (Have you paid your annual rhetorical licence fee? It's gone up this year.)

this could be a potent issue for freedom-lovers to coalesce around.

It could be. But it would be somewhat unfortunate if it was, I think. My initiation into the Libz was handing out free cigarettes in Midland Park on Wellington’s Lambton Quay. I was a tad uncomfortable about doing this. Tobacco is the world's deadliest drug. I don't advocate tobacco use per se.

Tobacco is the world's deadliest drug. Alcohol is probably the world's second deadliest drug. (It depends on how you measure these things.) It has long been a staple of the drug law reform movement to point out the inconsistency of the government's drug laws in this respect. Unfortunately, the government is slowly taking steps to remove the inconsistency, not by legalising safe drugs like cannabis, but by (slowly but surely) moving to criminalise tobacco and alcohol. Do not doubt that this is where we're headed.

Smokers in the past have been useless in fending off the vicious assaults of the Nanny State

An egregious example of this was van Buren's WIN Party, whose slogan was "Freedom of Choice". After a poor showing in the 2005 general election, the WIN Party was disbanded, and van Buren officially endorsed Peter Dunne's United Future Party. FFS.

It’s really is about bloody

Stephen Berry's picture

It’s really is about bloody time that someone took the fight back to the Government over their legion of stupid regulations that restrict every aspect of our lives. Tobacco merchants have finally declared that they’re not going to take any more of the state’s crap bending over with their campaign to get consumers of tobacco to stand up for themselves. Phillip Morris have launched the website: so smokers can make sure the Government hears their opinion. I have joined and I encourage all smokers and advocates of freedom to do the same.

Considering the ongoing campaign of oppression launched against tobacco consumption by the state, this campaign is well overdue. It started with simple advertising and sponsorship bans in the 90s. It has progressed with property rights violations as a result of the Smokefree Environment’s Act. The Government has increased the taxation on tobacco by 10%, seevn times in the last 6 years. Now they’re banning displays and next they’ll be banning branded packaging. Finally…big tobacco fights back! I wish more companies would fight back against state intervention. It’s about time supermarkets stopped letting the Commerce Commission rape them in an alley and then ask for more. It’s about time the liquor industry mobilised to defend its right to trade its products freely with adults. Its about time individuals stopped staying quiet while the Government strips their liberties away one tiny bit at a time. They peel the bark so slowly that everyone is surprised when the trunk is finally bald.

The Watermelon party of Russell Norman and that woman whose name nobody can remember are even worse than the current Government. Not only do they endorse the Government’s current actions…well to be honest they probably think the government is being too soft..but they do this while advocating the legalisation of cannabis. They are fucking hypocrites! Don’t get me wrong – while I virtually never touch the weed these days, I am a passionate advocate for its legalisation. What pisses me of is that the Greens will surf the sheeple wave with braindead populism to condemn one cancer causing drug while supporting the legalisation of another. At best, they’re idiots. At worst they’re cynical hypocritical creeps.

All individuals, smoker or not, should jump on this Phillip Morris bandwagon. Yes, I realise most who dislike the Government won’t because they’re from the stupid ‘I don’t care because I don’t smoke’ variety of garden gnome. A real wasted opportunity considering the vast resources the tobacco industry has to draw on to fund its fightback. However the rights that tobacco merchants and consumers have had violated are the same rights as those possessed by non-smokers. Everybody rightfully has sovereignty over their own body. When the state makes laws about what you can put into your body, everybody is violated by the state; not just those with forbidden tastes. When the state makes laws about whether you can smoke in a private building, the rights of all property owners are violated; not just those of bar owners. When the state puts taxes on the product you freely trade, the wallets of all are plundered, not just those of the traders.

Once they’ve finished with the Catholics, Communists and Jews, they’re coming for you.


I've joined. This has got me

Stephen Berry's picture

I've joined. This has got me so riled up, I'm actually doing a blog post for the first time in fuck knows

Thanks for the headsup.

Sam Pierson's picture

Thanks for the headsup. Done. Yep, you're on fire this week.


Shane Pleasance's picture


Important post again: you're

Mark Hubbard's picture

Important post again: you're on fire this week Linz. I've joined

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.